the　law；　God；　are　or　are　not。　Now　in　some　of　these　cases　the　objectors　foist　in
  private　aims；　the　utility　a　thing　has　for　me；　and　then　ask；　whether　it　be　all　the
  same　to　me　if　the　thing　exist　and　if　it　do　not。　For　that　matter　indeed；　the　teaching
  of　philosophy　is　precisely　what　frees　man　from　the　endless　crowd　of　finite　aims
  and　intentions；　by　making　him　so　insensible　to　them　that　their　existence　or
  non…existence　is　to　him　a　matter　of　indifference。　But　it　is　never　to　be　forgotten
  that；　once　mention　something　substantial；　and　you　thereby　create　a　connection
  with　other　existences　and　other　purposes　which　are　ex　hypothesi　worth　having：
  and　on　such　hypothesis　it　comes　to　depend　whether　the　Being　or　not…Being　of　a
  determinate　subject　are　the　same　or　not。　A　substantial　distinction　is　in　these　cases
  secretly　substituted　for　the　empty　distinction　of　Being　and　Nought。
  When　a　concrete　existence　is　disguised　under　the　name　of　Being　and　not…Being；
  empty…headedness　makes　its　usual　mistake　of　speaking　about；　and　having　in
  mind；　an　image　of　something　else　than　what　is　in　question：　and　in　this　place　the
  question　is　about　abstract　Being　and　Nothing。　In　others　of　the　cases　referred　to；　it
  is　virtually　absolute　existences　and　vital　ideas　and　aims；　which　are　placed　under
  the　mere　category　of　Being　and　not…Being。　But　there　is　no　more　to　be　said　of
  these　concrete　objects；　than　that　they　merely　are　or　are　not。　Barren　abstractions；
  like　Being　and　Nothing　…　the　initial　categories　which；　for　that　reason；　are　the
  scantiest　anywhere　to　be　found　…　are　utterly　inadequate　to　the　nature　of　these
  objects。　Substantial　truth　is　something　far　above　these　abstractions　and　their
  oppositions。　And　always　when　a　concrete　existence　is　disguised　under　the　name
  of　Being　and　not…Being；　empty…headedness　makes　its　usual　mistake　of　speaking
  about；　and　having　in　mind　an　image　of；　something　else　than　what　is　in　question：
  and　in　this　place　the　question　is　about　abstract　Being　and　Nothing。
  （3）　It　may　perhaps　be　said　that　nobody　can　form　a　notion　of　the　unity　of　Being
  and　Nought。　As　for　that；　the　notion　of　the　unity　is　stated　in　the　section　preceding；
  and　that　is　all：　apprehend　that；　and　you　have　comprehended　this　unity。　What　the
  objector　really　means　by　comprehension　…　by　a　notion　…　is　more　than　his　language
  properly　implies：　he　wants　a　richer　and　more　complex　state　of　mind；　a　pictorial
  conception　which　will　propound　the　notion　as　a　concrete　case　and　one　more
  familiar　to　the　ordinary　operations　of　thought。　And　so　long　as　ordinary
  incomprehensibility　means　only　the　want　habituation　for　the　effort　needed　to
  grasp　an　abstract　thought；　free　from　all　sensuous　admixture；　and　to　seize　a
  speculative　truth；　the　reply　to　the　criticism　is　that　philosophical　knowledge　is
  undoubtedly　distinct　in　kind　from　the　mode　of　knowledge　best　known　in　common
  life；　as　well　as　from　that　which　reigns　in　the　other　sciences。　But　if　to　have　no
  notion　merely　means　that　we　cannot　represent　in　imagination　the　oneness　of
  Being　and　Nought；　the　statement　is　far　from　being　true；　for　everyone　has
  countless　ways　of　envisaging　this　unity。　To　say　that　we　have　no　such　conception
  can　only　mean　that　in　none　of　these　images　do　we　recognise　the　notion　in
  question；　and　that　we　are　not　aware　that　they　exemplify　it。　The　readiest　example
  of　it　is　Becoming。　Everyone　has　a　mental　idea　of　Becoming；　and　will　even　allow
  that　it　is　one　idea：　he　will　further　allow　that；　when　it　is　analysed；　it　involves　the
  attribute　of　Being；　and　also　what　is　the　very　reverse　of　Being；　viz。；　Nothing：　and
  that　these　two　attributes　lie　undivided　in　the　one　idea：　so　that　Becoming　is　the
  unity　of　Being　and　Nothing。　Another　tolerably　plain　example　is　a　Beginning。　In　its
  beginning；　the　thing　is　not　yet；　but　it　is　more　than　merely　nothing；　for　its　Being　is
  already　in　the　beginning。　Beginning　is　itself　a　case　of　Becoming；　only　the　former
  term　is　employed　with　an　eye　to　the　further　advance。　If　we　were　to　adopt　logic　to
  the　more　usual　method　of　the　sciences；　we　might　start　with　the　representation　of　a
  Beginning　as　abstractly　thought；　or　with　Beginning　as　such；　and　then　analyse　this
  representation；　and　perhaps　people　would　more　readily　admit；　as　a　result　of　this
  analysis；　that　Being　and　Nothing　present　themselves　as　undivided　in　unity。
  （4）　It　remains　to　note　that　such　phrases　as　'Being　and　Nothing　are　the　same'。；　or
  'The　unity　of　Being　and　Nothing'　…　like　all　other　such　unities；　that　of　subject　and
  object；　and　others　…　give　rise　to　reasonable　objection。　They　misrepresent　the　facts
  by　giving　an　exclusive　prominence　to　the　unity　and　leaving　the　difference　which
  undoubtedly　exists　in　it　（because　it　is　Being　and　Nothing；　for　example；　the　unity　of
  which　is　declared）　without　any　express　mention　or　notice。　It　accordingly　seems　as
  if　diversity　had　been　unduly　put　out　of　court　and　neglected。　The　fact　is；　no
  speculative　principle　can　be　correctly　expressed　by　any　such　propositional　form；
  for　the　unity　has　to　be　conceived　in　the　diversity；　which　is　all　the　while　present
  and　explicit。
  'To　become'　is　the　true　expression　for　the　resultant　of　'to　be'　and　'not　to　be'；　it　is
  the　unity　of　the　two；　but　not　only　is　it　the　unity；　it　is　also　inherent　unrest　…　the
  unity；　which　is　no　mere　reference…to…self　and　therefore　without　movement；　but
  which　through　the　diversity　of　Being　and　Nothing　that　is　in　it；　is　at　war　with　itself。
  Determinate　Being　on　the　other　hand；　is　this　unity；　or　Becoming　in　this　form　of
  unity：　hance　all　that　'is　there　and　so'　is　one…sided　and　finite。　The　opposition
  between　the　two　factors　seems　to　have　vanished；　it　is　only　implied　in　the　unity；　it
  is　not　explicitly　put　in　it。
  （5）　The　maxim　of　Becoming；　that　Being　is　the　passage　into　Nought；　and　Nought
  the　passage　into　Being；　is　controverted　by　the　maxim　of　Pantheism；　the　doctrine
  of　the　eternity　of　matter；　that　from　nothing　comes　nothing；　and　that　something
  can　only　come　out　of　something。　The　ancients　saw　plainly　that　the　maxim；　'From
  nothing　comes　nothing；　from　something　something'；　really　abolishes　Becoming：
  for　what　it　comes　from　and　what　it　becomes　are　one　and　the　same。　Thus
  explained；　the　proposition　is　the　maxim　of　abstract　identity　as　upheld　by　the
  understanding。　It　cannot　but　seem　strange；　therefore；　to　hear　such　maxims　as　'Out
  of　nothing　comes　nothing：　Out　of　something　comes　something'　calmly　taught　in
  these　days；　without　the　teacher　being　in　the　least　aware　that　they　are　the　basis　of
  Pantheism；　and　even　without　his　knowing　that　the　ancients　have　exhausted　all　that
  is　to　be　said　about　them。
  §　88n
  Becoming　is　the　first　concrete　thought；　and　therefore　the　first　notion：　whereas　Being　and　Nought
  are　empty　abstractions。　The　notion　of　Being；　therefore；　of　which　we　sometimes　speak；　must　mean
  Becoming；　not　the　mere　point　of　Being；　which　is　empty　Nothing；　any　more　than　Nothing；　which　is
  empty　Being》　in　Being　then　we　have　Nothing；　and　in　Nothing；　Being；　but　this　Being　which　does
  not　lose　itself　in　Nothing　is　Becoming。　Nor　must　we　omit　the　distinction；　while　we　emphasise　the
  unity　of　Becoming；　without　that　distinction　we　should　once　more　return　to　abstract　Being。
  Becoming　is　only　the　explicit　statement　of　what　Being　is　in　its　truth。
  We　often　hear　it　maintained　that　thought　is　opposed　to　being。　Now；　in　the　face　of　such　a
  statement；　our　first　question　ought　to　be；　what　is　meant　by　being。　If　we　understand　being　as　it　is
  defined　by　reflection；　all　that　we　can　say　of　it　is　what　is　wholly　identical　and　affirmative。　And　if　we
  then　look　at　thought；　it　cannot　escape　us　that　thought　also　is　at　least　what　is　absolutely　identical
  with　itself。　Both　therefore；　being　as　well　as　thought；　have　the　same　attribute。　This　identity　of　being
  and　thought　is　not　however　to　be　taken　in　a　concrete　sense；　as　if　we　could　say　that　a　stone；　so　far
  as　it　has　being；　is　the　same　as　a　thinking　man。　A　concrete　thing　is　always　very　different　from　the
  abstract　category　as　such。　And　in　the　case　of　being；　we　are　speaking　of　nothing　concrete：　for　being
  is　the　utterly　abstract。　So　far　then　the　question　regarding　the　being　of　God　…　a　being　which　is　in
  itself　concrete　above　all　measure　…　is　of　slight　importance。
  As　the　first　concrete　thought…form；　Becoming　is　the　first　adequate　vehicle　of　truth。　In　the　history　of
  philosophy；　this　stage　of　the　logical　Idea　finds　its　analogue　in　the　system　of　Heraclitus。　When
  Heraclitus　says　'All　is　flowing'；　he　enunciates　Becoming　as　the　fundamental　feature　of　all　existence；
  whereas　the　Eleatics；　as　already　remarked；　saw　only　truth　in　Being；　rigid　processless　Being。
  Glancing　at　the　principle　of　the　Eleatics；　Heraclitus　then　goes　on　to　say：　Being　is　no　more　than
  not…Being；　a　statement　expressing　the　negativity　of　abstract　Being；　and　its　identity　with　not…Being；
  as　made　explicit　in　Becoming；　both　abstractions　being　alike　untenable。　This　may　be　looked　upon
  as　the　real　refutation　of　one　system　by　another。　To　refute　a　philosophy　is　to　exhibit　the　dialectical
  movement　in　its　principle；　and　thus　reduce　it　to　a　constituent　member　of　a　higher　concrete　form　of
  the　Idea。
  Even　Becoming　however；　taken　at　its　best　on　its　own　ground；　is　an　extremely　poor　term：　it　needs
  to　grow　in　d